Newbie McGM - Why the hell did we let Dem Taqat name the thread?

[NedimNapoleon]

Because its messy when it comes to islands and inlets. For a player I think the map is rather important because it spurs the roleplay and gameplay. Wars in IOTs usually start over a single province, but an important one to both players, maps need to be balanced in that sense, so national goals can conflict. Another aspect is that maps give a certain roleplay characteristic, a certain feel to the game, like I&B....The game was double the fun because of the nice and interactive map.

 

[Sonereal]

Because its messy when it comes to islands and inlets. For a player I think the map is rather important because it spurs the roleplay and gameplay. Wars in IOTs usually start over a single province, but an important one to both players, maps need to be balanced in that sense, so national goals can conflict. Another aspect is that maps give a certain roleplay characteristic, a certain feel to the game, like I&B....The game was double the fun because of the nice and interactive map.

The map wasn't very interactive, nor was it the center of the game. The fact it had named provinces is probably the major selling point of it for nostalgic reasons, and if the game had been using RIOT mechanics instead of Iron and Blood mechanics, the game probably would've died a fiery death by turn three due to players feeling uninvolved.

Maps don't spur gameplay, mechanics do. They don't even spur roleplay, because I have only looked at the MP4 map two or three times since starting, and only then because I needed to know what a border looked like. I don't have any real special connection to the map because I derive more entertainment from the stats sheet and what I come up with that isn't map-based.

 

[AlexRomaniaGrig]

I beg to differ, the first thing I look at is the map, I refuse to join no matter how good the ruleset is if the map isn't good.

You joined my IOT.
My IOT doesn't even have a map, and doesn't need it.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

You joined my IOT.
My IOT doesn't even have a map, and doesn't need it.

The doesn't need it part is enough, I've joined NESes that dont need maps and I understand why and I dont mind it.

The map wasn't very interactive, nor was it the center of the game. The fact it had named provinces is probably the major selling point of it for nostalgic reasons, and if the game had been using RIOT mechanics instead of Iron and Blood mechanics, the game probably would've died a fiery death by turn three due to players feeling uninvolved.

Maps don't spur gameplay, mechanics do. They don't even spur roleplay, because I have only looked at the MP4 map two or three times since starting, and only then because I needed to know what a border looked like. I don't have any real special connection to the map because I derive more entertainment from the stats sheet and what I come up with that isn't map-based.

It was quite interactive because it was a large provinced risk style map with factories on it and later resources....it was something new and outstanding. I check the map every update and plan via map, sort of like playing paradox games, you have to expand the nation to have that FEEL of an empire. Maybe we just have different styles but I wouldn't mind playing a "mechanicless" game if the rp, premises and map were good. Mechanics are just the rigging that holds it together, its the feel that counts.

 

[Tani Coyote]

When in doubt with rulesets, follow Willy Wonka's covered-up machine in the original movie. It works, but you don't really know how, since there's a cloth covering it up.

Likewise keeping most of the hard numbers hidden is good... and when a few players try to pry, to avoid a lengthy explanation to the whole playerbase (which would be required to make it fair), simply say it's a trade secret or something of that sort. Give general ideas rather than specific ones to avoid making brains melt.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Skirting accurate description of the mechanics demonstrates enormous contempt for the players. If it's tricky maths one can be forgiven for confusing explanations, but refusing to discuss the machinery outright carries the implication that you don't know how it's supposed to work, undermining player confidence.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Skirting accurate description of the mechanics demonstrates enormous contempt for the players. If it's tricky maths one can be forgiven for confusing explanations, but refusing to discuss the machinery outright carries the implication that you don't know how it's supposed to work, undermining player confidence.

Well I doubt that many people in IOT would be able to handle most of Tani's highly complicated formulas, from the sound of it there is a lot of background stuff in his games. And I mean if it isn't important to know about to play the game then why waste time explaining about it? I mean I'd be interested in finding out the formulas, but hey, I'm studying for a Double Maths Major, I'm different.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

if it isn't important to know about to play the game

In a stat-based game, everything is important.

 

[Sonereal]

In a stat-based game, everything is important.

No, because it encourages minmaxing, which is detrimental to atmosphere.

 

[christos200]

My IOT's do not use complex formulas, so I can share them with everyone.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

People don't do that already?

 

[Sonereal]

People don't do that already?

Pretty hard to minmax when you don't know the formula for combat calculations.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Skirting accurate description of the mechanics demonstrates enormous contempt for the players. If it's tricky maths one can be forgiven for confusing explanations, but refusing to discuss the machinery outright carries the implication that you don't know how it's supposed to work, undermining player confidence.

No, it demonstrates not wanting to intimidate them with a wall of text.

I find it a lot easier to join a game with a small ruleset than a monumental one.

I know how my mechanics work just fine. I don't feel the need to share the specifics because otherwise some people will game them and it feels more like a number cruncher than an experience for all involved. Those players who I'm so "contemptuous" towards? I will have to share every detail with them (in interest of fairness) whenever one player asks for specifics, which means the entire thread gets clogged with long, detailed posts expressing every single point of the game.

If I outlined every single equation, I bet my join rates would drop like crazy. More than once I've seen players run off because it's "too complex." So I create the illusion it's not complex while maintaining the benefits of complexity. It's the best of both worlds.

I give general ideas of the mechanics. Investment in x will do y. But I don't like giving specific numbers because then people will game the system. It's specifically that kind of gaming that helped bring down MP2. Among other things.

No, because it encourages minmaxing, which is detrimental to atmosphere.

This.

 

[Tyo]

I actually agree with Tani here. I feel a lot more in the game than with previous installations, and part of that may be due to the fact I'm not crunching numbers anymore. It just feels more real, and I like that I have to experiment with my orders.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Maybe I'm just sore because _x games later I still have no clue how his combat's supposed to work and even post-game he has never, ever, explained it.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Maybe I'm just sore because _x games later I still have no clue how his combat's supposed to work and even post-game he has never, ever, explained it.

What game are we talking?

Early on I did dice rolls. Was very inefficient, especially as an attacker. I just rolled die and whoever scored higher won.

Then I moved to numbers * quality, a system pioneered by Sonereal. Each side's numbers and quality were multiplied, then added together to form a total. From there each side's portion of the total determined their chances. 2 armies * 10 quality versus 1 * 10 = 20 versus 10 = 20/30 versus 10/30 = 66% versus 33% chance of victory.

Most recently I make use of a system that factors quality, quantity and other factors in separately. One can't win by spamming numbers or quality; one must use both. In addition I have it so battles are calculated differently... NPC versus NPC has no war plans involved whatsoever, whereas with human versus human war plans will make or break an offensive. My only suggestion to players, rather than giving the specific mechanics? Don't neglect any field, or you will pay for it. Balance is key.

I have always used RISK-esque results, with the left being attacker victories and the right being defender victories. 3-1 means there were 4 battles, 3 of which were won by the attacker.

 

[CivOasis]

When did this get here?

Anyways, some advice (that I'll probably add to later)

1) Hide the math. Most players - and the exceptions tend to be GMs and Kinich - have a panic attack when they see the underlying mechanics of more complex games.

2) With RP rules, stick to your guns. The more concessions you allow, the more likely the game will go to hell.

3) Equality trumps all. Feel free to talk to your players, but don't give any more attention than others.

4) If you're coming up with a backstory that isn't historical, keep it simple. These games are for people who want to jump in and play. Complex backstories should probably go over in NES, or be player-built.

 

[AlexRomaniaGrig]

When did this get here?

Anyways, some advice (that I'll probably add to later)

1) Hide the math. Most players - and the exceptions tend to be GMs and Kinich - have a panic attack when they see the underlying mechanics of more complex games.

2) With RP rules, stick to your guns. The more concessions you allow, the more likely the game will go to hell.

3) Equality trumps all. Feel free to talk to your players, but don't give any more attention than others.

4) If you're coming up with a backstory that isn't historical, keep it simple. These games are for people who want to jump in and play. Complex backstories should probably go over in NES, or be player-built.

I revealed the maths used in the succes chance of each action in my IOT. Each action has it's own formula. Still, it doesn't provide an exact result. Few actions get a succes chance higher than 90%, and i'm actually using a random number generator to determine if the action is succesful or not. You might as well have an action with 99% succes chance and fail, then have one with 1% and win. Randomness is key.The danger, the risk you take, the fact that you dont know the outcome and few predictions can be made, none accurate. Thats what gets me in the game. Randomness and luck. I love these words.

 

[Mosher]

I revealed the maths used in the succes chance of each action in my IOT. Each action has it's own formula. Still, it doesn't provide an exact result. Few actions get a succes chance higher than 90%, and i'm actually using a random number generator to determine if the action is succesful or not. You might as well have an action with 99% succes chance and fail, then have one with 1% and win. Randomness is key.The danger, the risk you take, the fact that you dont know the outcome and few predictions can be made, none accurate. Thats what gets me in the game. Randomness and luck. I love these words.

Randomness and luck kind of turn me off from games. Especially when they hand out stupid results (like the Swedish War in MP4 - I should have won most of the battles and been on the threshold of victory after the first turn, but because of bad luck I, despite having the advantage, lost most of my battles.

 

[Lighthearter]

There has to be a balance. You should always be afraid of failing, otherwise there's no tension, and for that you need a random element.

HOWEVER, you should also be able to minimize the risk through actions.

The Era IOT combat system attempts to balance these:

First, each side's units are added together and their Strength is totaled(Air units are calculated separately if assisting a land or sea battle, then the results are added to their total strength later). Then, any bonuses, traits or generals are factored in and the final number is established. After that, I add the two numbers together, and perform a best-2-out-of-3 RNG.

So, for example, two forces attack each other. One has three Guards, or 12 strength, and the other has 2 Guards and 3 CAS, which is 8 Strength of land units and 3 for air, making the total 11. Add that to the enemy strength and the RNG is 1-23. If the RNG lands before 13, Side A wins, and if it lands after, Side B does. Repeat this until one side has two victories.

After this, casualties are calculated. The losing side can inflict 50% of its own strength in damage, so here an RNG of 0-6 assuming Side B won. The winner can inflict up to 100% of his own strength, so here 0-11. Casualties are removed according to how much Strength the enemy destroyed. The only exception is that the winner must preserve at least one unit, otherwise they aren't really the winners.

The "best 2" system makes this useful for showcasing how superior forces usually win, but also supporting a random chance that even the smallest of forces can stand off an army - though they won't deal much damage.

It's basically Sone's old SCS, refined a little and without military tech.

-L